Excerpt taken from Richard Cheney's remarks to the American Society of Newspaper Editors :

• "Yet until this war is fully won, we cannot be overconfident in our position, and we must not underestimate the desperation of whatever forces remain loyal to the dictator. We know full well the nature of the enemy we are dealing with. Servants of the regime have used hospitals, schools and mosques for military operations. They have tortured and executed prisoners of war. They have forced women and children to serve as human shields. They have transported death squads in ambulances, fought in civilian clothes, feigned surrender and opened fire on our forces, and shot civilians who welcomed coalition troops."

• "In dealing with such an enemy, we must expect vicious tactics until the regime's final breath. The hardest combat could still be ahead of us. Only the outcome can be predicted with certainty: Iraq will be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction; the regime will end; and the Iraqi people will be free."

• " In removing the terror regime from Iraq, we send a very clear message to all groups that operate by means of terror and violence against the innocent. The United States and our coalition partners are showing that we have the capacity and the will to wage war on terror -- and to win decisively."

• "The attack on our country forced us to come to grips with the possibility that the time terrorist strike, they may well be armed with mire than just plane tickets and box cutters. The time they might direct chemical agents or diseases at our population, or attempt to detonate a nuclear a weapon in one of our cities. These are not abstract matters to ponder -- they are real dangers that we must guard against and confront before it's too late. From the training manuals and documents that we've seized on the war on terror, and from the interrogations we've conducted, we know the terrorists are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to use them against us. With September 11th as a fresh memory, no rational person can doubt that terrorists would use such weapons of mass murder the moment they are able to do so."

• "If we are to protect the American people and defend civilization against determined enemies, we cannot always rely on the old Cold War remedies of containment and deterrence. Containment does not work against a rogue state that possesses weapons of mass destruction and chooses to secretly deliver them to its terrorist allies. Deterrence does not work when we are dealing with terrorists who have no country to defend, who revel in violence, and who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to kill millions of others. To meet the unprecedented dangers posed by rogue states with weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist networks with global reach, our administration has taken urgent and, at times, unprecedented action."

• "Our war on terror continues on every front, from law enforcement, to intelligence, to military action. The President had made clear from the beginning that this will be a long and focused effort -- not only because the terrorist operate in the shadows, but also because they enjoy the backing of outlaw states. It is this alliance between terrorist networks seeking weapons of mass destruction and rogue states developing or already possessing these weapons that constitutes the gravest current threat to America's national security."

• " Therefore, a vital element of our strategy against terror must be to break the alliance between terrorist organizations and terrorist-sponsoring states. The chemical and biological weapons that Saddam Hussein is known to have produced are the very instruments that terrorists are seeking in order to inflict devastating harm on the people of this country, in Europe, and in the Middle East. That's why from the day the Gulf War ended in 1991, the United States has supported the efforts of the U.N. Security Council to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, And that is why the United States today is enforcing that demand."
  Apr. 9, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpt taken from Richard Cheney's remarks to the Heritage Foundation :

• "The President has made clear from the very beginning that this will be a long and focused effort, not only because the terrorists operate in the shadows, but because they also enjoy the backing and support of outlaw states. It is this alliance between terrorist networks seeking weapons of mass destruction and rogue states developing or already possessing these weapons that constitutes the gravest threat to America's national security.

  Therefore, a vital element of our strategy against terror is to break the alliances between terrorist organizations and terrorist states. In the case of Iraq, President Bush made it absolutely clear that the United States would not tolerate a growing danger from this dictator and his brutal regime. Today, Saddam Hussein's regime is history."
  May 1, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpt taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at Luncheon for former Congressman Robin Hayes :

• " After 9/11, President Bush decided that the distinction between the terrorists and their sponsors could no longer be permitted to stand. The Bush doctrine makes clear that those states that support terrorists, or provide sanctuary for terrorists, are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves of the acts they commit. So in addition to going after the terrorists, we are also taking on states that sponsor terror."

• "In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime harbored al Qaeda and brutalized an entire population. That regime is no more. In Iraq, where a brutal dictator threatened peace and gave support to terrorists, the United States launched on of the most extraordinary military campaigns in history. And that regime is no more."
  Sep. 12, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpt of Richard Cheney's statements from an interview with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press :

[QUESTION:Was Saddam involved in the September 11th attacks?]

• " We don't know. You [Tim Russert] and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

  We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

  Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, or course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammad Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

[QUESTION:What is our plan in Iraq? How long will the 140,000 American soldiers be there? How many international troops will join them? And how much is this going to cost?]

• "Well, some of those questions are unknowable at present, Tim. It'll depend on developments. It'll depend on how fast it takes us to achieve our objectives. Remember when we went there, that we went there specifically to take down the Saddam Hussein regime, to wrap up all WMD capability he had possessed or developed, to deal with the threat that his regime represented to the region, and the United States. Very significant challenge. But we have, in fact, I think, been very successful at achieving that. ...

  ... With respect to financing, the $87 billion we've asked for is -- about 3/4 of that is to support our military and security operations. About 1/4 of it will go specifically to helping make the investments Bremer believes we need to make in order to get the Iraqis back and functioning on their own capability.
  
  So how long will it take? I don't know. I can't say. I don't think anybody can say with absolute certainty at this point. We've achieved already, when you consider that we've only been there about four months, a great deal, and we are well on our way, I think, to achieving our objective. But the key here for us is to stay committed to get the job done, to get the guys on the ground the resources they need, both from a military as well as a civilian standpoint, and that's exactly what the president is doing."

[QUESTION:Did you misjudge the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq after major combat operations?]

• "Well, you're going to get into a debate here about - talking about several years, several hundred thousand troops for several years. I think that's a non-starter. I don't think we have any plan to do that, Tim. I don't think it's necessary to do that. There's no question but what (sic) we've encountered resistance. But I don't think anybody expected the time we were there to be absolutely trouble-free. We knew there were holdover elements from the regime that would fight us and struggle. And we also knew al-Qaeda was here and Ansar al-Islam, up in the northeastern Iraq, which we'll come back to, talk about in a minute.

  So I don't think there was a serious misjudgment here. We couldn't know precisely what would happen. You know, for example, one of the things we spent time worried about was that Saddam would destroy his own oil industry, that he'd do in Iraq what he did in Kuwait 12 years ago. The consequence of that, if he'd gone in and blown up those wells, as they contemplated doing, in fact wired some of them for destruction, would have been that the oil industry would have been shut down to zero production, probably for several years, while we tried to restore it. We were able to defeat that. That didn't occur. We had plans for it that we didn't have to execute or implement. So it's like any other process. A plan is only as good until you start to execute, then you have got to make adjustments and so forth. But I don't think there has been a major shift in terms of U.S. troop levels. And I still remain convinced that the judgment that we'll need 'several hundred thousand for several years' is not valid."

• "Tim, we can do what we have to do to ail in this conflict. Failure's not an option. And go back again and think about what's involved here. This is not just about Iraq or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it's very, very important we get it right. If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what's at stake here. That's one of the reasons they're putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that's going to strike a major blow at their capabilities."

[QUESTION:Where are they [weapons of mass destruction]?]

• "Well, I think that the jury is still out in terms of trying to get everything pulled together with respect to what we know. But we've got a very good man now in charge of the operation, David Kay. He used to run UNSCOM, a highly qualified, technically qualified and able individual. He's in charge of the operation now. And I also think, Tim, that if you go back and look at what we found to date, that we -- there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had these capabilities. This wasn't an idea cooked up overnight by a handful of people, either in the administration or out of the CIA. The reporting that led to the National Intelligence Estimate, upon which I based my statements to you, that was produced a year ago now, the essence of which has since been declassified, that was the product of hundreds of people working over probably 20 years, back at least to the Osirak reactor in 1981. The conclusions in that NIE, I think, are very valid. And I think we will find that in fact they are valid. What we're dealing with here is a regime that had to learn after we hit them in '91 that anything above ground was likely to be destroyed in an air campaign. They'd gone through many years of inspections. They knew they had to hide and bury their capabilities in this region inside their civilian structure. And I think that's what they did. And if you look -- we'll talk about the nuclear program. The judgment in the NIE was that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material, that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year. That was the judgment of the intelligence community of the United States and they had a high degree of confidence in it.

  What do we know ahead? Well, we know he had worked on the program for 20 years. We know he had technicians who knew how to do this stuff because they had been working on it over that period of time. We believed the community believed, that he had a workable design for a bomb. And we know he had 500 tons of uranium. It is there today at Tuwaitha, under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency. All those are facts that are basically not in dispute. And since we got there, we found -- we had gentleman come forward, for example with full designs for a process centrifuge system to enrich uranium and the key parts that you'd need to build such a system. And we know Saddam had worked on that kind of system before. That's physical evidence that we've got in hand today.

  So to suggest that there is no evidence that [Hussein] had aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons, I don't think is valid. And I think David Kay will find more evidence as he goes forward, interviews people, as we get to folks willing to come forward now as they become more and more convinced that it's safe to do so, that, in fact, [Hussein] had a robust plan, had iously worked on it and would work on it again.

  Same on biological weapons -- we believe he'd developed the capacity to go mobile with his BW production capability because, again, in reaction to what we had done to him in '91. We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We've, since the war, found two of them. They're in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack.

  So on CW and chemical weapons, my guess is it's buried inside his civilian infrastructure. That's not an unusual place to put it. And, again, David Kay's task is to look for evidence to back it up, to find physical evidence when he can find that. And again, the whole notion that somehow there's nothing to the notion that Saddam Hussein had WMD or had developed WMD, it just strikes me as fallacious. It's not valid now. Nobody drove into Baghdad and had somebody say, 'Hey, there's the building over there where all of our WMDs stored.' But that's not the way the system worked."

[QUESTION:[existence of] Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke (in a Mar. 16, 2003 interview on Face the Nation.)]

• "Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show, 'weapons capability.' We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon."

• "I guess the intriguing thing, Tim, on the whole thing, this question of whether or not the Iraqis were trying to acquire uranium in Africa. In the British report, this week, the Committee of the British Parliament, which just spent 90 days investigating all of this, revalidated their British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa. What was in the State of the Union speech and what was in the original British White paper. So there may be difference of opinion there. I don't know what the truth is on the ground with respect to that, but I guess - like I say, I don't know Mr. Wilson."

[QUESTION:Shouldn't we have a wholesale investigation into the intelligence failure that they [CIA] predicted that Saddam had biological, chemical and is developing a nuclear program?]

• "My guess in the end, they'll be proven right, Tim. On the intelligence business, of all, it's intelligence. These are judgments involved in all of this. But we've got, I think, some very able people in the intelligence business that review the material here. This was a crucial subject. It was extensively covered for years. We're very good at it. As I say, the British just revalidated their claim. So I'm not sure what the argument is about here. I think in the final analysis, we will find that the Iraqis did have a robust [weapons] program."
  Sep. 14, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpt taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at a 2003 Air Force Convention :

• "Prior to 9/11, too many nations tended to draw a distinction between terrorist groups and the states that provided these groups with support, sanctuary and safe harbor. They were unwilling to hold these terror-sponsoring states accountable for their actions.

  After 9/11, President Bush decided that the distinction between the terrorists and their sponsors could no longer be permitted to stand. The Bush Doctrine makes clear that those states that support terrorists, or provide sanctuary for terrorists, are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves of the acts they commit. So in addition to going after the terrorists, we are also taking on states that sponsor terror.

  In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime harbored al Qaeda and brutalized an entire population. That regime is no more. In Iraq, where a vicious dictator built, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, supported terrorists, and defied the clear demands of the U.N. Security Council for 12 years, the United States launched one of the most extraordinary military campaigns in history. And that regime is no more."

• "We are working with the people of Iraq to create a free, functioning and prosperous society - and we're making progress. Most of Iraq today is relatively stable and quiet. There are still on-going incidents, attacks on coalition forces and on others, either from remnants of the old regime or from terrorists, many of whom were in Iraq before the war, and some of whom have arrived since the conclusion of major combat operations. There are two main sources of terror that coalition forces must deal with, and we are. We have already captured or killed 42 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders, and with the growing number of tips we're receiving from the Iraqi people themselves, it's only a matter of time until we get the rest of them. According to General Abizaid, the actual number of daily incidents this month is significantly below what it was last month, and we're determined to make sure those numbers keep going in the right direction."
  Sep. 17, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpt taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at a luncheon for Congressman Jim Gerlach at the Desmond Hotel and Convention Center in Malvern, Pennsylvania :

• "Iraq, obviously there, we had to go to use force as well, too. [referring to Afghanistan] And the reason we had to do Iraq, if you hark back and think about that link between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was the place where we were most fearful that that was most likely to occur, because in Iraq we've had a government -- not only was it on of the worst dictatorships in modern times, but had oftentimes hosted terrorists in the past -- the Abu Nidal organization, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, suicide -- payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine, but also an established relationship with the al Qaeda organization, and, without question, had iously had and used weapons of mass destruction -- chemical weapons against the Iranians and against the Kurds.

  For all of those reasons it was vitally important that we deal with the threat in Iraq, as well, too. One of the interesting things -- and this is a bit of sidelight maybe, but I think it's important that people understand this, we've had this whole debate over, well, maybe Saddam didn't really have WMD. Maybe he was just bluffing, that somebody cooked the books and came up with this notion that the Iraqi government had invested in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
  
  Well, of all, of course, the intelligence community in the United States going back many years, including into the prior administration, concluded that he did, indeed, have programs for chemical, biological and nuclear programs -- nuclear weapons."

• " So there's no question in my mind but what Saddam was guilty of what we said he was guilty of, and that the action that the President ordered in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If we had that information and ignored it, if we'd been told, as we were, by the intelligence community that he was capable of producing a nuclear weapon within a year if he could acquire fissile material and ignored it, if we had not paid any attention to the fact that al Qaeda was being hosted in Northeastern Iraq, part of poisons network producing ricin and cyanide that was intended to be used in attacks both in Europe, as well as in North Africa and ignored it, we would have been derelict in our duties and responsibilities. There was no way this President could have done that. So we launched the effort -- I think -- and have had great success."
  Oct. 3, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpt taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at a Bush-Cheney '04 Reception at the Wakonda Club in Des Moines, Iowa :

• "One of the most devastating, frightening thoughts you can have is the prospect of a member of al Qaeda, a terrorist organization, loose in our city with a biological or a nuclear weapon. It obviously would result in a far more devastating attack than this country has ever experienced."

• "We know, for example, that he [Ramzi Yousef] is the nephew of the mastermind of the attack on 9/11, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, who is now in custody. They're related. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, who ran the attack eight years earlier. We know that one of the attackers -- and we know this from documents that we have uncovered in Baghdad -- one of the attackers, a man named Abdul Rahman Yasin, or Yasin, after the attack, took refuge in Iraq. And we know from documents we found there that he was granted a monthly stipend and safe haven in Iraq, after the attack on the World Trade Center [1993]."

• "But good defense isn't good enough. You've also got to have an offensive component to your security strategy. And that's what we've done. You also have to have the objective of aggressively going after the terrorists and destroying the terrorists and their networks before they can launch further attacks against the United States. That's the only certain way to defend the United States."

• " In Iraq, we went in there very aggressively, as we needed to do. And we think we've made significant progress. We went after Iraq, because if you hark back again to that biggest threat we face, that is a terrorist equipped with a deadly biological or nuclear weapon, a weapon of mass destruction, Iraq is one of those places in the world where you had a dictatorship, one of the worst in modern times, a regime that had not only produced, but had used chemical weapons in the past, for example, on the Kurds and on the Iranians, a regime that had hosted terrorists. Abu Nidal lived there for years, the Abu Nidal organization that did the Lauro -- USS Lauro hijacking. We had [sic] Palestinian Islamic Jihad lived there. Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.

  The general proposition had to be that we had to deal with the threats that Iraq represented, and that's exactly what we've done. One of the debates you've seen in recent days is this question of, well, maybe Saddam didn't really have any WMD. And there are people out there peddling that notion -- those who are trying to undermine our attack, the decision the President made.

  But I have never believed that for a minute. I think the record is overwhelming that he [Saddam Hussein] had, in fact, had major investments in weapons of mass destruction."

• " Now, there's no question this guy had invested billions in developing illegal programs of weapons of mass destruction. And don't let anybody tell you that this was not a significant threat. He's used it iously. We knew from past history that it was only a matter of time until he would be in a position to do so once again."
  Oct. 4, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpt taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at a luncheon for Congressman Chris Chocola at the Joyce Athletic Center in Notre Dame, Indiana :

• " In Iraq, a dictator armed to threaten the peace and gave [sic] support to terrorists, and his regime is no more. Baghdad fell six months ago today, and important work still goes on in Iraq. Yet despite difficulties that we knew would occur, the Iraqi people prefer liberty and hope to tyranny and fear. Your congressman had been to Iraq, and he's seen hand the progress we've made in helping Iraqis build a secure and self-governing nation. There are terrorists in the country, but there's no dictator to protect them any more. And we're dealing with them one-by-one. We are fighting this evil in Iraq so that we do not have to fight it on the streets of our own cities."
  Oct. 9, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpts taken from Richard Cheney's remarks to the Heritage Foundation :

• " Iraq has become the central front in the war on terror. It was crucial that we enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Now, having liberated that country, it is crucial that we keep our word to the Iraqi people, helping them to build a secure country and a democratic government. And we will do so.

  Our mission in Iraq is a great undertaking and part of a larger mission that United States accepted now more than two years ago. September 11th, 2001 changed everything for this country. We came to recognize our vulnerability to the threats of the new era. We saw the harm that 19 evil men could do, armed with little more than airline tickets and box cutters and driven by a philosophy of hatred."

• "Remember what we saw in the morning of 9/11. And knowing the nature of these enemies, we have as clear a responsibility as to ever fall to government. We must do everything in our power to keep terrorists from ever acquiring weapons of mass destruction."

• "In Iraq, we took another essential step in the war on terror. The United States and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a murderous dictator and rid the world of a menace to our future peace and security.
  
  Saddam has a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with Al Qaida, providing training to Al Qaida members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.

• Saddam built, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction.

  He refused or evaded all international demands to account for those weapons.

  Twelve years of diplomacy, more than a dozen Security Council resolutions, hundreds of U.N. weapons inspectors, thousands of flights to enforce the no-fly zones and even strikes against military targets in Iraq, all of these measures were tried to compel Saddam Hussein's compliance with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. All of these measures failed."

• "Last October, the United States Congress voted overwhelming to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

  Last November, the U.N. Security Council passed a unanimous resolution finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences in the event Saddam Hussein did not fully and immediately comply. When Saddam Hussein failed even then to comply, our coalition acted to deliver those serious consequences."

• " In the post-9/11 era, certain risks are unacceptable. The United States made our position clear: We could not accept the grave danger of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass destruction against us or our friends and allies.

  And gradually, we are learning the details of his hidden weapons program. This work is being carried out under the direction of Dr. David Kay, a respected scientist and former U.N. inspector, who is leading the weapons search in Iraq."

• "Even as more evidence is found of Saddam's weapons programs, critics of our actions in Iraq continue to voice other objections. And the arguments they make are helping to frame the most important debate of the post-9/11 era. Some claim we should not have acted because the threat from Saddam Hussein was not imminent. Yet, as the president has said, 'Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intention, politely putting us on notice before they strike?'.

  I would remind the critics of the fundamental case the president has made since September 11th. Terrorist enemies of our country hope to strike us with the most lethal weapons known to man and it would be reckless in the extreme to rule out action and save our worries until the day they strike."

• " Critics of our national security policy have also argued that to confront a gathering threat is simply to stir up hostility. In the case of Saddam Hussein, his hostility to our country long predates 9/11 and America's war on terror."

• " Had the United States been constrained by the objections of some, the regime of Saddam Hussein would still rule Iraq, his statues would still stand, his sons would still be running the secret police, dissidents would still be in prison, the apparatus of torture and rape would still be in place, and the mass graves would be undiscovered.

  We must never forget the kind of man who ran that country and the depravity of his regime.

  Last month, Bernard Kerik, former police commissioner of New York returned from Iraq after spending four months helping to activate and stand up a new national police force. Bernie Kerik tells of many things he saw, including the videos of interrogations in which the victim is blown apart by a hand grenade. Another video, as he describes it, shows and I quote, 'Saddam sitting in an office allowing two Doberman Pinchers to eat alive a general because he did not trust his loyalty,' end quote.

  Those who declined to support the liberation of Iraq would not deny the evil of Saddam Hussein's regime. They must concede, however, that had their own advice been followed, that regime would rule Iraq today.

  President Bush declined the course of inaction and the results are there for all to see. The torture chambers are empty, the prisons for children are closed, the murders of innocents have been exposed and their mass graves have been uncovered. The regime is gone, never to return. And despite difficulties we knew would occur, the Iraqi people prefer liberty and hope to tyranny and fear."

• "The contrast of visions is evident, as well, throughout the region. Had we followed the counsel of inaction, the Iraqi regime would still be a menace to its neighbors and a destabilizing force in the Middle east. Today, because we acted, Iraq stands to be a force for good in the Middle East."

• " If Saddam Hussein were in power today, there would still be active terror camps in Iraq, the regime would still be allowing terrorist leaders in to the country and this ally of terrorists would still have a hidden biological weapons program capable of producing deadly agents on short notice.

  There would be today, as there was six months ago, the prospect of the Iraqi dictator providing weapons of mass destruction or the means to make them to terrorists for the purpose of attacking America.
  
  Today, we do not face this prospect. There are terrorists in Iraq, yet there is no dictator to protect them and we are dealing with them, one by one. Terrorists have gathered in that country and there they will be defeated. We are fighting this evil in Iraq so we do not have to fight it on the streets of our own cities."
  Oct. 10, 2003 Richard Cheney

Excerpts taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at Bush-Cheney '04 reception :

• "In the weeks and months following 9/11, people in every part of the country, regardless of party, took comfort and pride in the character and the conduct of our President. From that day to this, he's led a steady, focused and relentless campaign against the enemies who struck America that morning and killed some 3,000 of our fellow citizens.

  Not long after those attacks, one high-ranking al Qaeda official said, "This is the beginning of the end for America." It's pretty clear that terrorist had no understanding of the American people. (Applause.) He clearly didn't know George Bush. (Laughter.) We see the terrorists for what they are -- men who will not be stopped by negotiations, by appeals to reason, or by the least hint of conscience. We have only one option in this fight, and that's to take the fight to the enemy.

  This is a war that we fight on many fronts. As we stand here today, many of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed. Those still at large are living in fear -- and their fears are well founded, because we're on their trail. (Applause.) In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime brutalized an entire population and harbored al Qaeda -- and that regime is no more. In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. And he gave support to terrorists and defied the demands of the civilized world -- and that regime is no more.

  At the start of 2003, Saddam Hussein controlled the lives and the future of some 25 million people. At the start of 2004, he's in custody -- never again to brutalize his people, never again to support dangerous terrorists, never again to threaten the United States of America.

  Freedom still has enemies in Iraq -- terrorists who are targeting the very success and freedom that we're providing to that country. But terror attacks on innocent civilians will not intimidate Americans, and they will not intimidate the Iraqi people. With good allies at our side, we are helping the Iraqis build a free country, which will make them and us more secure. We're standing with the Iraqi people as they assume more responsibility for their own security and move toward self government. These are not easy tasks -- yet they are absolutely essential. As the President has said many times -- and no one should doubt -- we will finish what we've begun, and we will win this essential victory in the war on terror."
  Jan. 13, 2004 Richard Cheney

Excerpts taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at reception for the republican party of Washington :

• "As we stand here today, many of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed. Those still at large are living in fear -- and their fears are well founded, because we're on their trail. In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime brutalized an entire population -- and that regime is no more. In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, gave support to terrorists, defied the demands of the civilized world -- and that regime is no more."

  At the start of 2003, Saddam Hussein controlled the lives and the future of some 25 million people. At the start of 2004, he's in custody in Iraq -- never again to brutalize his people, never again to support dangerous terrorists, and never again to threaten the United States of America."
  Jan. 13, 2004 Richard Cheney

Excerpts taken from Richard Cheney's remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council :

• " In Iraq, the United States and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a murderous dictator, and rid the world of a menace to our future peace and security. Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction. Year after year, the U.N. Security Council demanded that he account for those weapons and that he comply with all the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. Year after year, he refused."
  Jan. 14, 2004 Richard Cheney

Excerpts taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at An Event for Congressman Jon Porter at the Belagio Hotel, Las Vegas :

• "In the weeks and months following September 11th, people in every part of the country, regardless of party, took comfort and pride in the character and the conduct of our President. From that day to this, he has led a steady, focused, and relentless campaign against the enemies who struck America that morning and killed some 3,000 of our fellow citizens.

  As we stand here today, many of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed. Those still at large are living in fear -- and their fears are well founded, because we are on their trail. In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime brutalized an entire population and harbored al Qaeda -- and that regime is no more. In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists, and defied the demands of the civilized world -- and that regime is no more.

  At the beginning of 2003, just a year ago, Saddam Hussein controlled the lives of 25 million people. Today, a year later, he's in jail in Baghdad, and he will never again threaten the people of Iraq, or the people of the United States."
  Jan. 15, 2004 Richard Cheney

Excerpts taken from Richard Cheney's remarks at the 31st Annual Conservative Political Action Conference :

• "In Iraq, the United States and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a murderous dictator, and rid the world of a menace to our future peace and security. (Applause.) A year ago, Saddam Hussein controlled the lives and the future of almost 25 million people. Today, he's in jail. (Applause.) He will never again brutalize his people, never again support dangerous terrorists, and never again threaten the United States of America."

• "From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained a great deal of support. But as the President said on Tuesday night: There is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."
  Jan. 22, 2004 Richard Cheney

Richard Cheney stated in remarks to the World Economic Forum, Congress Center, Davos, Switzerland :

• "In Iraq, too, after decades of Baathist rule, democracy is beginning to take hold. Less than a year ago, the people of that country lived under the absolute power of one man and his apparatus of intimidation and torture. Today the former dictator sits in captivity, while the people of Iraq prepare for full self government. Saddam Hussein can no longer harbor and support terrorists, and his long efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are finally at an end."

• "In all of our actions, the world's democracies must send an unmistakable message: that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction only invites isolation and carries great costs. And leaders who abandon the pursuit of those weapons will find an open path to far better relations with governments around the world."

• "There is a temptation, however, to assume that the good faith that underlies these institutions will always be returned. Yet as we saw in the case of Iraq, after 12 years and more than a dozen Security Council resolutions -- the last one vowing serious consequences -- there comes a time when deceit and defiance must be seen for what they are. At that point, a gathering danger must be directly confronted. At that point, we must show that beyond our resolutions is actual resolve. As President Bush has said, "Our people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men.

  Inaction can bring its own serious consequences. Had we not acted, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and there is little question he would still be defying the United Nations and making a mockery of its mission."

• "Well, from time to time, there's been discussion about the need to sort of modernize and update the U.N. The arrangements were settled on in San Francisco in 1945, and that was nearly 60 years ago. We've got certain anomalies, I think, in that the structure of the United Nations, as it's currently constituted, doesn't necessarily fit the way the world works these days -- major powers that are not represented as much -- they don't have as much influence at the U.N. as they might have if this were 1945 and we were establishing -- I don't want to get into any more detail than that. I don't want to recommend specific changes on a national basis. I think those are the kinds of issues that need to be dealt with internationally. At some point I would expect there would be proposals made by various members of the United Nations, to reform and upgrade and modernize the institution. I don't think I should recommend any here this morning."
  Jan. 24, 2004 Richard Cheney

Richard Cheney stated remarks at a Breakfast for Congressional Candidate Charlie Dent :

• "In Iraq, America and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a murderous dictator, and rid the world of a gathering threat to our peace and security. Saddam Hussein once controlled the lives and the future of almost 25 million people. Today he is in jail. Because we acted, Afghanistan and Iraq have gone from terrorist states to free, sovereign nations, and emerging democracies."

• "The defeat of tyranny and violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rise of democracy in a troubled region, will be a crucial setback for international terror. Because we are strong and resolute, these nations will never go back to the camp of tyranny and terror. And America will never go back to the false comforts of the world before 9/11. Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness."

• "On the Senate floor, Senator Kerry said Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and that those weapons were an unacceptable threat. Many times prior to the war in Iraq, Senator Kerry described Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, and said that this was, 'always his position on Iraq.' And Senator Edwards, in an interview on TV, called Iraq, 'the most serious and imminent threat to our country.'"

  "Every American needs to know that there was widespread agreement on the nature of the threat from Iraq's former dictator. Our administration, the Congress, members of the U.N. Security Council, members of the ious administration -- all reviewed the intelligence and all concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat."

• "In 2002, after years of defiance by Saddam Hussein, the U.N. Security Council, yet again, demanded a full accounting of his weapons programs. Saddam said no. So the United States had a choice to make: Either rely on the good faith of a man who had started two wars, who had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and provided safe haven to terrorists -- either rely on the good faith of such a man, or take action to defend America. Given that choice, President Bush made the only responsible decision a leader of the United States could have made, our President chose to confront the dictator and defend the American people. And he was absolutely correct to do so."
  Jan. 24, 2004 Richard Cheney